Jimmy Butler is Somali?
Nah, he's white.
Jimmy Butler is Somali?
The term "Hispanic" was adopted by the United States government in the early 1970s during the administration of Richard Nixon
I'm actually shocked at this statistic considering how much Canada is pushed as being multicultural, and the US as... well not that.
First of all, to suggest that the other colonial powers never helped to exterminate a people is offensive.Exactly the same thing did happen in both Canada and Mexico - the indigenous peoples were massacred, those who remained were forced off their lands into small segregated reserves or forced to assimilate, and the world lost a great many unique cultures and peoples. Canada and Mexico aren't innocent of this either, but the United States is worse by virtue of numbers.
At the very least, the Fang people of Gabon survived France. What happened to the Chitimacha? The Timucua? The Secatogue? The United States destroyed these people and their history and their language and their customs; we will never know them.
Multiracial =! Multicultural
Still not compared to American cities.
Vancouver:
White: 53%
Asian: 41%
Black: 1%
Hispanic: 1%
Toronto:
White: 50%
Asian: 34%
Black: 9%
Hispanic: 3%
-----
New York City:
White: 44%
Hispanic: 29%
Black: 26%
Asian: 13%
Los Angeles:
White: 29%
Hispanic: 49%
Black: 10%
Asian: 11%
The most common reported ethnic origins of Toronto residents are those from England (12.9%), China (32.0%), Canada (11.3%), Ireland (9.7%), Scotland (9.5%), India (17.6%), Italy (6.9%), the Philippines (5.5%), Germany (4.6%), France (4.5%), Poland (3.8%), Portugal (3.6%), and Jamaica (3.2%), or are of Jewish ethnic origin (3.1%). There is also a significant population of Ukrainians (2.5%), Russians (2.4%), Sri Lankans (2.3%), Spaniards (2.2%), Greeks (2.2%), Koreans (1.5%), Dutch (1.5%), Iranians (1.4%), Vietnamese (1.4%), Pakistanis (1.2%), Hungarians (1.2%), Guyanese (1.1%), and Welsh (1.0%). Communities of Afghans, Albanians, Arabs, Barbadians, Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Colombians, Croats, Ecuadorians, Ethiopians, Grenadians, Macedonians, Mexicans, Nepalis, Romanians, Salvadorans, Serbs, Somalis, Tibetans, Trinidadians, and Vincentians are also recognized. Established ethnic neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Corso Italia, Little Italy, Little India, Greektown, Koreatown, Little Jamaica, Little Portugal and Roncesvalles celebrate the city's multiculturalism.
First of all, to suggest that the other colonial powers never helped to exterminate a people is offensive.
Secondly, how many Native Americans do you think the US killed? Because, while it's certainly a tragedy and crime of a massive scale, the total numbers compared to so many other colonial genocide are tiny. Like, possibly 1/200th of the number of Congolese killed by the Belgians in a 20 year period. The vast, vast majority of the Native American population had died before the US was ever founded.
Yes, of course the slave trade was shameful. No one is trying to ignore that. But basically every European colonial power engaged in it. The US actually engaged in it for a comparatively short amount of time.It is, which is why I'm not doing that.
Genocide isn't just the murders, it is the repression of that population as well, the preventing of them ever re-emerging. Given time and land, communities can recover. The United States specifically acted to prevent that from happening. The Belgians have retreated from the Congo; indigenous American reserves are a fraction of the land they once covered.
We've also not even touched upon the slave trade - people unjustly seized from their country of origin to enrich the metropole? That's yet more colonialism, and the number of slaves traded in the United States - averaging 35,000 a year - is yet another significant contributor.
It's pretty shameful the steps being taken to ignore this.
I'm actually shocked at this statistic considering how much Canada is pushed as being multicultural, and the US as... well not that.
I'm pretty sure you could find more diversity at UCLA or Berkely than what you posted let alone an entire countryI wish we could see it broken down by ethnicity - 'black' in the U.S. is very different than black here, proportionately. Not to say that it really matters too much, but this is still a pretty simplistic generalisation. I think New York though would STILL be more diverse with this metric than any Canadian city, but that metric would be more useful to me.
ie:
Although I think this also from a while back
It is less racially diverse than America, if you use the American racial constructs. It is more culturally diverse, though.
If we're taking language into account, the US is still more diverse than Canada. Tried viewing the link to the actual study but I got directed to some kind of home realtor site.
I'm curious about this research, as the US doesn't breakdown census data by ethnicity. I tired to read the actual report but the link is broken.
If we're taking language into account, the US is still more diverse than Canada. Tried viewing the link to the actual study but I got directed to some kind of home realtor site.
In the 90s, it was, but looking at Wikipedia it's now 76% white as of a few years ago. Contrast with the US being 63% NHW (the very small population of "Latin Americans" is in the Canada stats as a non-white group).Canada is not 90% white I can assure you that
Right, so what you're saying is that the US is, in actuality, ridiculously more diverse than office numbers would indicate.Using the American concept of race as an indicator for diversity is super dumb. Iranians, Swedes, Poles, Algerians are all white. They're cultures are very different.
Right, so what you're saying is that the US is, in actuality, ridiculously more diverse than office numbers would indicate.
Right, so what you're saying is that the US is, in actuality, ridiculously more diverse than office numbers would indicate.
Right, you are going based off that study you posted before...which I already pointed out might not be wholly accurate for the US. It's hard to tell without the actual study.Nope. Canada is more diverse. Countries in Africa are the most diverse.
As an American my perception of Canada has always been extremely white and not multicultural at all. And that's the general impression from popular culture, too. So this seems kinda "water is wet" to me.
The only thing shocking to me is that there is a higher percentage of Asians than black people in Canada.
The only thing shocking to me is that there is a higher percentage of Asians than black people in Canada.
Right, so what you're saying is that the US is, in actuality, ridiculously more diverse than office numbers would indicate.
I was kidding.No i'm pretty sure that he was saying that he doesn't get why people from the US only ever measure diversity by race.
Not sure if that's true, but it does look that way when i read US-based views on diversity here on gaf, even when the topic is clearly about cultural diversity.
No i'm pretty sure that he was saying that he doesn't get why people from the US only ever measure diversity by race.
Not sure if that's true, but it does look that way when i read US-based views on diversity here on gaf, even when the topic is clearly about cultural diversity.
On top of that, throwing everyone who has a similar skin tone into broad groups is idiotic. You're lumping people with vastly different ethnicities, cultures, and languages into the same groups, and then going, "look, same!"No i'm pretty sure that he was saying that he doesn't get why people from the US only ever measure diversity by race.
Not sure if that's true, but it does look that way when i read US-based views on diversity here on gaf, even when the topic is clearly about cultural diversity.
Are you insane? White divisions are so important in the US that people forget that Hispanic/Latinos are white.I think this map splits white Canadians by ethnic heritage (probably Anglo/Canadienne) but does not do the same for white Americans.
From what I understand, white ethnic divisions are much more important in Canada than in the US.
Are you insane? White divisions are so important in the US that people forget that Hispanic/Latinos are white.
A large majority are white. Curiously the second largest group of Hispanics don't identify with any of the 'standard' races.No one really forgets this because this isn't really true. Yes there are white latinos but latinos by default aren't white. Unless you erase the sizable native and African groups.
I'm curious about this research, as the US doesn't breakdown census data by ethnicity. I tired to read the actual report but the link is broken.
I wouldn't call this a smoking gun just yet.
Ancestry refers to a person's ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. Some ethnic identities, such as "German" or "Jamaican," can be traced to geographic areas outside the United States, while other ethnicities such as "Pennsylvania Dutch" or "Cajun" evolved in the United States.
The intent of the ancestry question is not to measure the degree of attachment the respondent had to a particular ethnicity. For example, a response of "Irish" might reflect total involvement in an "Irish" community or only a memory of ancestors several generations removed from the individual. A person's ancestry is not necessarily the same as his or her place of birth; i.e., not all people of German ancestry were born in Germany (in fact, most were not).
Currently, when someone reports more than two groups for their ancestry in the American Community Survey, only the first two ancestries are tabulated.
Some people identify their ancestry as American. This could be because their ancestors have been in United States for so long or they have such mixed backgrounds that they do not identify with any particular group. Some foreign born or children of the foreign born may report American to show that they are part of American society. There are many reasons people may report their ancestors as American, and the growth in this response has been substantial.
The ancestry question was added to the census form in 1980, so the earliest information available from this question is from 1980. Several publications listed in the ”Publications" section of this ancestry website contain 1980 and 1990 data.